ABOOBACKER Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The building scheduled in RCP 123/97 on the file of the Rent Controller (Munsif), Thalassery is belonging to the revision Petitioner. By Ext. Al kychit dated 07/02/1984, the building was let out to the Respondent for a monthly rent of Rs. 40. It was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 70. While so, the revision Petitioner filed the petition before the Rent Controller seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) and Section 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". It was alleged that the Respondent ceased to occupy the petition schedule building and it was kept closed for about two years and that since it was kept closed, there is every chance of attack by white ants thereby damaging the building. So, according to the revision Petitioner, the Respondent was using the building in such a manner so as to reduce its value and utility materially and permanently.

(2.) Petition was objected by the Respondent. Both count of allegation were denied by the Respondent and contended that the building was used for storing the spare parts of the bus and no damage was caused at all. Neither is there any cessation to occupy. Enquiry was conducted. During the course of enquiry, the revision Petitioner and an advocate commissioner, who inspected the building, were examined as P Ws 1 and 2. On his side, Ext. A1 kychit and Ext. C1 report were marked. The Respondent was examined as RW 1. On his side Exts. B1 and B2, photo copies of two registration certificates in respect of two stage carriage vehicles were marked. On appraisal of the materials disclosed during the enquiry, the learned Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that the Respondent ceased to occupy the building for more than six months. Instead his son had been keeping some spare parts of the bus in the petition schedule building. Consequently, the Kent Controller declined eviction sought under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act and ordered the Respondent to surrender the possession of the petition schedule building under Section 11(4)(v).

(3.) Being aggrieved, the Respondent tenant took up the matter before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority arrived at a conclusion that keeping of certain articles belonging to the son of the Respondent and payment of rent regularly would amount to occupation by the tenant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order of eviction under Section 11(4)(v) was vacated and RCP was dismissed. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above judgment, this revision petition was preferred by the landlord Petitioner.